Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Polarik speaks out on Obama COLB forgery and paternity question
Plains radio ^

Posted on 01/11/2009 4:35:26 AM PST by dascallie

Posted by Ron Polarik

IP: 70.119.62.151

Jan 10th, 2009 - 2:10 PM

I hate to rain on anyone's parade here, but the only way to know for sure when and where Stanley Dunham was married is to see a certified genuine copy of her original Marriage Licenses on record in Hawaii -- assuming that she actually had one for Obama Sr. to begin with. (BTW, a copy of the marriage license was not a required document to get a divorce, as explained below).

Back in 1961, common-law marriages (marriages w/o a marriage license needed) were still recognized as legitimate unions. Basically, all it would take is for Dunham and Obama to simply shack up together for while and refer to themselves as a "married couple."

Also, the immigration laws at the time were extremely lax about immigrants marrying US citizens as a fast track to get a Green Card and to become lawful permanent residents.

Short of a DNA test, we have no way of knowing who is Obama Jr's biological father, and without that vault original birth certificate, we don't know what parent names were put on that certificate, where he was born, and when (The date, August 4, 1961, may be true, but it is far from being etched in stone).

There is another problem with this assumed paternity, and that is Obama Jr. looks much more like Malcolm X or Frank Marshall Davis than he looks like Obama Sr.

Now, there may have actually been a civil ceremony, but that, in and of itself, does not make the "Daddy was Obama Sr" scenario a slam dunk.

Far from it. Stanley Ann Dunham was three months pregnant when she married Obama Sr, and given her devious past history, there is a better than chance likelihood that this was a "shotgun wedding," i.e., that she entrapped Obama Sr. into marrying her whether it was his kid or someone else's.

Let's face facts here. In 1961, there was a big-time stigma to becoming a single teenage mom. In most rural parts of the country, she'd be run out of town on a rail. This is also the reason why a lot of teenagers got married, or as they used to say back then, "The father did the right thing."

Then again, you had a "Guess who's coming to dinner" scenario as well. As for which states in the US were mixed marriages most tolerated, the top three choices are Hawaii, Hawaii, and Hawai. The fact that whites were a minority group in Hawaii had a lot to do with their acceptance level, as native Hawaiians would be far less tolerant to a "Haole" marrying one of their own.

I look at the Dunham-Obama as a "Marriage of convenience," and I'm not alone in this view. If you were a teenage mom back in 1961, the only way to avoid the stigma was to find someone to marry, if not the sperm donor himself.

Now, if Dunham was impregnated by another black man, she would be looking to marry a black man, and the traditional tale of (a) boy meets girl, (b) boy and girl settle down, and (c) boy and girl make a baby would be the same, except that (c) would come before (b) and would read, "different boy" and girl make baby.

What I can say, for sure, is that Barack Hussein Obama II has never proven when, where, and to whom he was born, and that he committed felony document fraud to cover it up. He's deceived the American voter into believing that he was born in Hawaii as the biological child of Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama I. Even if the document were real, he still could not use it to prove his natural-born status.

What the forgery does prove, however, is the extent to which someone would break the law in order to become President, and that fact alone should disqualify him from any public office, let alone the President.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: bho2008; birthcertificate; certifigate; colb; eligibility; hawaii; kenya; obama; obamanoncitizenissue; polarik; stanleyanndunham; whereisrush
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-160 next last
To: dascallie
"Back in 1961, common-law marriages (marriages w/o a marriage license needed) were still recognized as legitimate unions. Basically, all it would take is for Dunham and Obama to simply shack up together for while and refer to themselves as a "married couple."

... or just tell a court they "shacked up" in 1964... even if they didn't... that famous "Dunham method" for legal filings.... good post!

101 posted on 01/11/2009 10:16:52 PM PST by Plummz (pro-constitution, anti-corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Plummz

I have found one single person who had either a class or seminar with Jr while attending Columbia and I found his name on a Columbia alumni message board in the state of TX. His name is William Araiza and he has told two stories, one for a seminar and one for a class, take your pick. He is located in TX so is not the lawyer with the same name.


102 posted on 01/11/2009 10:20:01 PM PST by Chief Engineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Plummz

I have found one single person who had either a class or seminar with Jr while attending Columbia and I found his name on a Columbia alumni message board in the state of TX. His name is William Araiza and he has told two stories, one for a seminar and one for a class, take your pick. He is located in TX so is not the lawyer with the same name.


103 posted on 01/11/2009 10:20:09 PM PST by Chief Engineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Chief Engineer

Interesting, thanks... I guess that text is unavailable?


104 posted on 01/11/2009 10:23:17 PM PST by Plummz (pro-constitution, anti-corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: dascallie

I had a friend who became pregnant in the early ‘60s by one man who happened to be married, so she quickly found another to marry her. He thought the baby was his, and mom kept her secret until he died.

Even for what was clearly a ‘liberated woman’ in those days, the stigma of bearing a child out of wedlock was to be avoided at all costs. And aboriton was illegal. So those women didn’t have a lot of options once pregnant.


105 posted on 01/11/2009 10:26:44 PM PST by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Plummz

I have always believed that Obama Sr (described as a “rake” always open to the attention of co-eds) was the father and Ann became pregnant when the two celebrated the election of JFK as President. Don’t forget that Davis also wrote of the “...Kenyan student who split, leaving behind TWO pregnant blondes...” Obama Sr was a drinker and Davis liked going to the bars as well. A frequent watering hole was Charlie’s Tavern where Obama Sr and Davis would have met. Davis in his sex novel also mentioned that the 13 year old Ann was in the care of her aunt. Ann’s two aunts on her father’s side were 10 and 7 years older than her but living in KS while Madelyn’s sister was attending University herself. The incident of seduction occured between Davis, his first wife Thelma Boyd and the 13 year old girl while the couple were living in GA. There is no evidence that Davis was in KS between the time he left school in the late 1920’s and when he moved to HI in 1948. It was made quite clear that the seduction happened with his first wife and not his second.


106 posted on 01/11/2009 10:28:54 PM PST by Chief Engineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Plummz

You can do the same thing I did and google William Araiza and see if you can find the TX Columbia alumni message board. After that it was a matter of trying to find quotes of the seminar/class he attended with Jr.


107 posted on 01/11/2009 10:31:13 PM PST by Chief Engineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

I would like to point out at Elizabeth Mooney Kirk was Obama Sr’s sponsor until he graduated from UH at Manoa. I April of 1962 she wrote Tom Mboya a letter asking if another sponsor could be found for Obama Sr to attend graduate school, preferably at Harvard. She was unable to continue her sponsorship as she had two step children who were going to be attending University. Tom Mboya ended up sponsoring Sr for his Harvard studies. This letter shows that Obama Sr’s plans were not certain in April 1962 let alone April of 1961.


108 posted on 01/11/2009 10:35:56 PM PST by Chief Engineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

I would like to point out at Elizabeth Mooney Kirk was Obama Sr’s sponsor until he graduated from UH at Manoa. I April of 1962 she wrote Tom Mboya a letter asking if another sponsor could be found for Obama Sr to attend graduate school, preferably at Harvard. She was unable to continue her sponsorship as she had two step children who were going to be attending University. Tom Mboya ended up sponsoring Sr for his Harvard studies. This letter shows that Obama Sr’s plans were not certain in April 1962 let alone April of 1961.


109 posted on 01/11/2009 10:35:56 PM PST by Chief Engineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Quix; Calpernia; Fred Nerks; null and void; pissant; george76; PhilDragoo; Candor7; MeekOneGOP; ...
Thanks Quix. What?!? Invaded by Mexico?

It's always something. Anyone remember the movie, "The Mouse that Roared"?

Here's a totally-off-topic Ping.

110 posted on 01/11/2009 10:39:18 PM PST by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Plummz

Ann was taking extension courses when she was first registered for classes at UW so the time classes started was irrelevant. She could have completed her work in such courses while the infant slept. She did receive 20 credits for her courses taken at UW.(Info found at Christian Faith and Reason website but unavailable at this time)


111 posted on 01/11/2009 10:40:04 PM PST by Chief Engineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Quix
Mexico invading Arizona? As the Swiss Commander is said to have to told the German commander (WW-I timeframe). "We'll all shoot twice and go home."

From Stephen Halbrook

Shortly before World War I, the German Kaiser was the guest of the Swiss government to observe military maneuvers. The Kaiser asked a Swiss militiaman: "You are 500,000 and you shoot well, but if we attack with 1,000,000 men what will you do?" The soldier replied: "We will shoot twice and go home."

112 posted on 01/11/2009 11:14:17 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

Here is a reminder of the playing field.

Cockroaches do hate sunlight.

Douglas Hagmann, on the Northeast Intelligence Network website, summed it up this way: “There appears to be an unprecedented level of collusion between numerous political power brokers on both sides of the political divide, elected and appointed officials on both the federal and state levels, as well as members of the corporate media. It is interesting if not alarming to take a few steps back in an effort to gain a wider perspective, and finding unusual alliances and political ‘bed partners’ among various members this group.... [S]ome events... have taken place within the past several years ... that have effectively changed or otherwise had a direct impact on the social and geopolitical landscape of America and its power structure. A few examples include such things as NAFTA [North America Free Trade Agreement], the SPP [Security and Prosperity Partnership] treaty, border and immigration issues, the PATRIOT Act, the Global Poverty Act of 2007, the management of the oil “crisis,” the most recent economic crisis and the remedies enacted, and the recent G-20 economic summit, where President Bush essentially provided economic oversight of U.S. economic institutions to the European Union.”


113 posted on 01/11/2009 11:17:27 PM PST by Eye of Unk (How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words! SA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

Bwahahaha. They might make it past San Antonio but they’d never get past Fort Hood. My guess is that they’re preparing for heightened action against the cartels.

That was a good one. Thank you. :)


114 posted on 01/11/2009 11:19:34 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

Very unusual audios from the NYTimes from 2007, talking about Obama’s faith ...(Obama and Religion) ... that he was advised by pastors in the Chicago community in his ‘organizing’ days, that he’d get better response if he belonged to a church, and how he went from an unbeliever to a ‘believer.’

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtml/2007/04/29/us/politics/20070430_OBAMA_AUDIOSS.html


115 posted on 01/11/2009 11:22:24 PM PST by STARWISE ((They (Dims) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war-RichardMiniter, respected OBL author)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
Bwahahaha. They might make it past San Antonio but they’d never get past Fort Hood.

They wouldn't even get *to* San Antonio, plenty of Texas Guard and Reserve units in south Texas, some with Armor. Plus Navy bases. Texas ANG has F-16s at San Antonio, AF has the 7th Bomb Wing with B-1s at Dyess.

116 posted on 01/11/2009 11:32:42 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Chief Engineer

thanks....details, details, your specialty!


117 posted on 01/11/2009 11:36:50 PM PST by Fred Nerks (fair dinkum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

Very good points. I concur. Allow me to rephrase: Bwahahaha! They’ll never even make it to San Antone.


118 posted on 01/12/2009 12:27:37 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

Thanks for the ping. 86 is a long read, but worth it.


119 posted on 01/12/2009 2:07:48 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks; mojitojoe
What is this about?

LINK TO NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE
The New York Times article has been edited and restored, they removed the lines of the shahada included in the original article.

Most of what you included in your comment came straight from Beckwith's The Obama File WITHOUT ATTRIBUTION.

It looks like the item has 4 links/sources to me, and I'm pretty sure I have cached copies.

Search "Kristof" at Obama and Islam


120 posted on 01/12/2009 2:52:22 AM PST by Beckwith (Typical white person)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-160 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson